As long as we are gonna to analyze what you really said, I have a problem of what you said above and what I believe it implies. First of all every tow vehicle and everything towed in a real world will have some degree of sway. That is an absolute fact. There is no such "none to speak of". This is because no matter how well you design the components, there will always be external forces beyond your control that cause some degree of sway to be induced. The purpose of all the sway control systems is to keep this to a minimum. The reason for this is primarily safety. I don't think that it is a point of dispute that some systems do it to a greater degree than others. I think it is also obvious to state that all other factors being equal, the hitch system that reduces sway to the greatest degree is safer to tow with. So what this all boils down to is how big a gamble are you going to take with your safety. I agree that no one choice fits all, because we all are willing to gamble to some degree or we wouldn't be towing a trailer simply for pleasure. We would drive an automobile and stay in resorts. However this is not a case of going up the choice of hitches from bottom to top and stopping at the one that achieves total safety. Total safety is not achievable.

My personal choice is to scrimp on luxuries and spend the maximum on safety. It is also my desire that others do the same. Somewhere down the road, their choice of less than maximum safety may have a devastating affect on me.

Ken

It's ok that we disagree, but let's be clear about what the disagreement looks like, ok?

"None to speak of" is a subjective and relative term. I use it to mean I have had rigs in which the sway was "none to speak of." It means that it didn't cause much of a noticeable problem. Didn't require steering corrections. Didn't create driving panic. That was my subjective experience. So, when you claim there is "no such thing as none to speak of," you are substituting your subjective experience for mine. That's not generally a legitimate argument.

The rest of your comment is about risk and safety. In your own words, "what this all boils down to is how big a gamble are you going to take with your safety." That's what it boils down to for you. For others, the boil down might consist of other factors too. Cost and convenience are some other things that it might boil down to. If only safety was the goal, the obvious choice is not to tow anything. In fact, not to even drive. That's just an obvious statistical observation. How about this - - if you really want to improve your safety, reduce your speed by 10MPH across the board. That doesn't even cost you anything.

It's fun to rule out cost as a consideration in all these choices. But only a small percentage of people can do that. What the rest of the people usually want to do, is manage the compromise between what they can afford and what the risks are. In short, they use a relative methodology, not an absolute one. That's where our disagreement lies - you are suggesting everyone follow an absolute rule, and I am suggesting that if they can't afford that, they should follow a relative path. We'll just have to disagree on that.

That's where we differ. I don't define that as a problem. I don't believe there are conflicting variables. Only conflicting valuations of the variables.

I can tell you there is no right or wrong answer to all this. I've been doing it for 15+ years and the argument can go 'round and 'round.

Some people will value some things at different levels. That's what makes it all interesting to me.

You don't believe there are conflicting variables? How about cost vs. comfort? How about comfort vs. size? How about size versus safety? How about comfort vs. weight? How about increased complexity vs. long term reliability? How about complexity vs. being stranded in the wild with an inoperable unit?

I could name another dozen conflicts between just the parameters I initially listed as part of the problem, but I think the point has been sufficiently made that buying a "camping shelter" is generally a problem solving task just like buying a car or a house or a camera.

I have never met anyone who argued that such purchases didn't require problem solving methodologies. There's always a first! We're just going to have to disagree on this one Sean.

I forget along the way here to say this: I might in the future be a customer of yours. But if I was, it would be as a result of me concluding that your hitch was the right solution for me to a problem I was having.

It's fun to rule out cost as a consideration in all these choices. But only a small percentage of people can do that. What the rest of the people usually want to do, is manage the compromise between what they can afford and what the risks are. In short, they use a relative methodology, not an absolute one. That's where our disagreement lies - you are suggesting everyone follow an absolute rule, and I am suggesting that if they can't afford that, they should follow a relative path. We'll just have to disagree on that.

By the way, I agree with you. As I stated earlier, it's ONLY INTERESTING to me that one will follow a relative path in one category using cost as a consideration, and will follow it in another category not using the same consideration.

As for the "conflicting" variables - isn't it the valuation of the variables that makes them conflicting?

It's ok that we disagree, but let's be clear about what the disagreement looks like, ok?

"None to speak of" is a subjective and relative term. I use it to mean I have had rigs in which the sway was "none to speak of." It means that it didn't cause much of a noticeable problem. Didn't require steering corrections. Didn't create driving panic. That was my subjective experience. So, when you claim there is "no such thing as none to speak of," you are substituting your subjective experience for mine. That's not generally a legitimate argument.

The rest of your comment is about risk and safety. In your own words, "what this all boils down to is how big a gamble are you going to take with your safety." That's what it boils down to for you. For others, the boil down might consist of other factors too. Cost and convenience are some other things that it might boil down to. If only safety was the goal, the obvious choice is not to tow anything. In fact, not to even drive. That's just an obvious statistical observation. How about this - - if you really want to improve your safety, reduce your speed by 10MPH across the board. That doesn't even cost you anything.

It's fun to rule out cost as a consideration in all these choices. But only a small percentage of people can do that. What the rest of the people usually want to do, is manage the compromise between what they can afford and what the risks are. In short, they use a relative methodology, not an absolute one. That's where our disagreement lies - you are suggesting everyone follow an absolute rule, and I am suggesting that if they can't afford that, they should follow a relative path. We'll just have to disagree on that.

I am sorry, but I totally fail to get your point or intent. You use ambiguous terms and attempt to define others intentions for them. I in no manner am suggesting people follow an absolute rule. You seem to me to simply enjoy arguing for sake of eventually wearing people down and then feeling good because you "won". I don't particularly enjoy that and value my time more than that. In my opinion convincing you of anything is not worth my time, even if I could. So carry on with your nonsense if you can get anyone else to waste their time replying.

I forget along the way here to say this: I might in the future be a customer of yours. But if I was, it would be as a result of me concluding that your hitch was the right solution for me to a problem I was having.

Thanks... and since you define all purchases as a problem I'll look forward to providing you with the best solution available to the hitch purchase problem. (I have my tongue firmly planted in my cheek while I type this... )

I hit a big "whoop" in the road and the TV exerts a tremendous force on the trailer frame causing it to bend. The body of the trailer has to absorb these frame deflections. Over time, this results in rivet pops, bending and cracking the aluminum skin, loosening of interior cabinetry & body from frame.
I have a vintage AS with a 4" C channel frame and I think the WD hitch is just destroying my trailer.
Setting up a WD hitch requires more than a static formula - not sure what the answer is other than experience and common sense.
"Over-hitched". Probably a lot of older trailers are.

I am sorry, but I totally fail to get your point or intent. You use ambiguous terms and attempt to define others intentions for them. I in no manner am suggesting people follow an absolute rule. You seem to me to simply enjoy arguing for sake of eventually wearing people down and then feeling good because you "won". I don't particularly enjoy that and value my time more than that. In my opinion convincing you of anything is not worth my time, even if I could. So carry on with your nonsense if you can get anyone else to waste their time replying.

Ken

So your complaint is that you don't like arguing, and you are going to make that point by continuously arguing? In other words, it's ok for you to post what you want to say, but not me? Well, that's humorous at least.

I hit a big "whoop" in the road and the TV exerts a tremendous force on the trailer frame causing it to bend. The body of the trailer has to absorb these frame deflections. Over time, this results in rivet pops, bending and cracking the aluminum skin, loosening of interior cabinetry & body from frame.
I have a vintage AS with a 4" C channel frame and I think the WD hitch is just destroying my trailer.
Setting up a WD hitch requires more than a static formula - not sure what the answer is other than experience and common sense.
"Over-hitched". Probably a lot of older trailers are.

Thanks... and since you define all purchases as a problem I'll look forward to providing you with the best solution available to the hitch purchase problem. (I have my tongue firmly planted in my cheek while I type this... )

Ha ha...Well sure. Who would spend a dime on a hitch if it wasn't to solve a problem? To those who insist that this hitch must be bought because it is the safest, I'd simply ask this: What if the price was $10,000? What if it was even more than that? I don't want to invoke an over used term here but "common sense" does come into play. (smiley face here)

Ha ha...Well sure. Who would spend a dime on a hitch if it wasn't to solve a problem? To those who insist that this hitch must be bought because it is the safest, I'd simply ask this: What if the price was $10,000? What if it was even more than that? I don't want to invoke an over used term here but "common sense" does come into play. (smiley face here)

No, not as standard practice. If a retailer can explain the value they bring to the table I do work with them. But, I'm a "you work for what you get" kind of guy. If a dealer thinks they get adiscount because they are a dealer I don't think that works in today's world. Most dealers don't understand the hitch, don't take the time to understand it and lump it in with all the other hitches. They literally want to be compensated for something because they sell something else. I just can't get my head around that thinking. If I called an Airstream dealer and said, "I manufacture and sell hitches and one of my customers wants anAirstream, what's my price?" they would laugh at me.

I don't expect ANYONE to sell a product and not make a profit. I do expect them to SELL the product to make a profit.

Hi, in both cases, the key word is Authorized Dealer. This usually means that they stock an inventory of the product that they sell. And they would most definitely sell for a profit. You are not an Airstream dealer, but many RV dealers could be a specific hitch retailer.

What I appreciate is that all this exchange has been civil and interesting to read.

I have been known to enjoy a chocolate ice cream cone. There are many vendors of that flavor of ice cream. Some folks like dark and others like milk chocolate. Some Like Ben & Jerry's and others like Sealtest. There are price points covering a large range. In the end, we purchase the taste we want at the price we are willing to pay for that scoop of ice cream. We can read the marketing label for information or ask others how they like it. But the final choice is up to the purchaser.

There are many threads on this forum that have divergent opinions being shared. Many points of few reflect just the experiences of a particular writer. I would presume that most of the folks here are not engineers with huge laboratories in their back yard to precisely measure results from controlled testing. Experience is the greatest teacher around.

So far in the US, we still have the power to decide how we allocate a personal scare resource - cash. We use cash as a barometer for value we place on the information we receive about a given item and have to decide how much cash we are willing to allocate for that item, considering parameters totally unrelated to the "wonderfulness" of an item.

During one of many of my unpleasant experiences with trailer rentals from Mr "U", I would have given anything to stop the swaying that resulted in jack knifing because the rental unit lacked operational brakes on one side of the car carrier. That problem manifested just after cresting the top of a very steep long hill and starting downwards. Sway control was not offered.

I want to avoid those laundry generating experiences when towing in the future and researched for products that help that type of incident from being experienced again. I based my decision on vendor marketing claims that were reinforced by actual folks experiences, not opinions.

The side topics in other threads relatively linked to the product in question were useful in narrowing the search field to those items without that problematic part.

It is all good folks. Thanks for sharing. I have learned a lot from this thread,too.